Imprisoning Medieval Women by Gwen Seabourne

Author:Gwen Seabourne [Seabourne, Gwen]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: History, Europe, Medieval
ISBN: 9781317118275
Google: YeUoDAAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2016-05-13T16:15:41+00:00

Chapter 5

Common Law

Actions for Wrongful Imprisonment

Royal courts entertained suits for unwarranted confinement from an early period. As soon as there are records of central courts, there is evidence of appeals (‘criminal’ accusations) for false imprisonment.1 As was the case with royal statutes in this area, cases show the connection of abduction of women (and children) with violation of property rights. This idea was present in the thirteenth century, as can be seen from the cases of abduction and detention which were described as ‘robbery’,2 and the issues of abduction of women raised in property cases from at least the reign of Henry III.3

Treatises of the late thirteenth century still mention the appeal as a normal way of proceeding in the case of false imprisonment.4 Such cases, as well as cases under the statutes of Westminster for ravishment, might also be raised by jury presentment.5 In addition, from the early thirteenth century onwards, those aggrieved by having been confined had been able to sue using trespass writs, seeking compensation for the wrong done to them.6 Early trespass writs in this area included actions of ‘besetting’, in which people were alleged to have been surrounded – in their own homes or other buildings – and/or (false) imprisonment, either alone or coupled with assault or other misconduct.7 Such actions are reasonably numerous in Year Books and in the plea rolls of the central courts of common law.8

Some of the outlines of this form of action can be gathered from records and reports. Thus, it is clear that liability could be imposed either on somebody who seized another, or on a later holder of the plaintiff, such as a jailer.9 It is also evident that it was not only the immediate victim who could sue. From at least the 1220s, a master could sue for the loss done to him by wrongs to a servant, a husband for wrongs to his wife.10 Working out some aspects of the definition of the trespass from medieval materials is, however, problematic, and indicative of the relative lack of theoretical development of tort law in the middle ages.11 ‘Imprisonavit’ is nowhere defined. Fifteenth-century lawyers did debate some of the requirements for an action, and later lawyers debated the boundaries of this ‘obvious’ concept,12 but there is little medieval evidence on exactly how much force and overbearing of will was needed before a confinement would be actionable. A 1436 Year Book report suggests that any form of consent would destroy an action’s chance of succeeding. In it, a widow alleged false imprisonment at Southwark, but admitted that she had gone voluntarily with the defendant to Temple Bar beforehand: Serjeant Newton argued that this did not amount to imprisonment.13 As will be discussed further below, it is not straightforward to discern contemporary lawyers’ view of will and consent, and, in particular, their application to women in the context of confinement.

The terse and formulaic nature of records makes it hard to see the facts alleged in many common law false imprisonment cases.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.